Deepu @ Suraj Kumar vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 108 of 2026, under Sections 105, 115(2) BNS, Police Station Phase-1, District Gautam Buddha Nagar during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. On 02.03.2026, the informant was called to the police station for identification of the dead body. The inquest and postmortem of the husband of the informant were conducted on 02.03.2026 and 03.03.2026 respectively. Thereafter, the first information report was lodged against the applicant and another on 03.03.2026 at 17:48 hours. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The witnesses namely, Kuldeep and Manish have merely stated that they came to know about the death of the husband of the informant on the basis of information received. It is contended that the applicant has no role in the alleged incident and has been implicated on the basis of suspicion. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 04.03.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. As per the statement of witnesses namely, Kuldeep and Manish, they came to know about the death of the husband of the informant on the basis of information received. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Deepu @ Suraj Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 6, 2026

Lbm/-